While it is unlikely to be 'malicious' attack,that PATH is something you should be concerned about. Let's consider the directories in that PATH:

/home/uname/bin
/home/uname/.local/bin
/usr/local/sbin
/usr/local/bin
/usr/sbin
/usr/bin
/sbin
/bin
/usr/games
/usr/local/games

I have two comments:

1. Because /home/uname/bin and home/uname/.local/bin are the first directories listed in the PATH, it is possible for executables there to override standard system executables. It might be that someone believes that such executables are superior to the standard one. Any incompatibility between those executables and the standard ones, however, could easily cause script failures at surprising moments.

2. As you are aware, directories like /usr/local/sbin, /usr/sbin, and /sbin are generally useful only to root. While it is not in any way a security violation to have them in your PATH, it is odd.

While it is unlikely to be 'malicious' attack,that PATH is something you should be concerned about. Let's consider the directories in that PATH:

/home/uname/bin
/home/uname/.local/bin
/usr/local/sbin
/usr/local/bin
/usr/sbin
/usr/bin
/sbin
/bin
/usr/games
/usr/local/games

I have two comments:

1. Because /home/uname/bin and home/uname/.local/bin are the first directories listed in the PATH, it is possible for executables there to override standard system executables. It might be that someone believes that such executables are superior to the standard one. Any incompatibility between those executables and the standard ones, however, could easily cause script failures at surprising moments.

   To be sure, putting these directories at the beginning of the PATH is not unusual and can be useful. You should just be aware of the potential downsides.

2. As you are aware, directories like /usr/local/sbin, /usr/sbin, and /sbin are generally useful only to root. While it is not in any way a security violation to have them in your PATH, it is odd.